Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MINOR S. SUNAYANA REPRESENTED BY versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Minor S. Sunayana represented by v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented - W.P.No.21224 of 2003 and W.P.No.21225 of 2003 [2003] RD-TN 1143 (30 December 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 30/12/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN

W.P.No.21224 of 2003 and W.P.No.21225 of 2003

and

W.P.M.P.No.26375/2003

Minor S. Sunayana represented by

Father and guardian S.Srinivasan .. Petitioner in both W.Ps. -Vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented

by Secretary, Department of Education

Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

2. Selection Committee,

Director of Medical Education,

Kilpauk, Chennai.10.

3. Common Committee for Selection of

Students for MBBS 2003-2004

Anna University, Chennai.25.

4. Bhindu, Registration No.1534631

5. Sruthi, Registration No.1132682.

6. Sruthi, Registration No.1522185 ..... Respondents in Both W.Ps. W.P.No 21224/2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that Appendix III (1) and the allotment of marks for participation, achievements and over all championship in Appendix III 2(A), (B),(C) and (D) in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS Admission for the year 2003-2004 as illegal, unreasonable void and arbitrary.

W.P.Nos.21225 of 2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of declaration, declaring that the selection of respondents 4 to 6 under quota for eminent Sports Persons for the 1 year MBBS Course 2003/2004 is void, illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to admit the petitioner to the 1 year MBBS Course 2003-2004 in any one of the Government Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.

For Petitioner :: Mr.K. Chandrasekaran

For Respondents:: Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai

1 and 2 Govt. Advocate

For 3rd respondent.. M/s G.M. Mani

Associates

For 4th respondent ..Mr.Sriram

For 5th respondent .. Mr.C.R.Rajan

:ORDER



The petitioner applied for admission to the First Year MBBS Degree Course under seats earmarked for eminent Sports Persons. Her Cut off mark is 285.85 out of 300. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the eligibility for admission under eminent Sports person category, the candidates so found eligible should be selected and admitted only on the basis of academic marks and not on the basis of the marks awarded for the certificates in Sports. According to the petitioner, for the three seats, the following is the comparative chart of marks of the petitioner and the selected candidates:

Total Secured

Marks marks

1. Petitioner 300 285.85

2. 4th respondent 300 251

3. 5th respondent 300 233

4. 6th respondent 300 213

2. The respondents 4 to 6 who have secured lesser academic marks have been selected as they secured higher marks for the excellence in Sports. Hence the petitioner has filed W.P.No.21224/2003 for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that Appendix III (1) and the allotment of marks for participation, achievements and over all championship in Appendix III 2(A), (B), (C)and (D) in the prospectus for

MBBS/BDS Admission for the year 2003-2004 is illegal, unreasonable, void and arbitrary. The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.21225/2003 for declaration that the selection of respondents 4 to 6 is illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and for consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to admit her in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2003-2004. 3. The question for consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether after the award of marks to the excellence in sports on the basis of the certificates produced by the candidates viz., eminent Sports Persons and found them eligible for consideration for admission under the quota, the further selection and admission should be made on the basis of the marks awarded to the excellence in Sports or on the basis of the academic marks. Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported in KHALID HUSSAIN VS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF TAMIL NADU HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( A.I.R. 1987 W.L.R.91). Considering the fact that once the candidates are categorized depending upon the level of their achievement, this Court held that there is absolutely no possibility of further invidious distinction in determining the eminence in that particular category. That judgment also arose in respect of selection of candidates against the seats earmarked for eminent Sports Persons. The said judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No.1307/1986. The said judgment of the Division Bench was again taken to Apex Court and the Apex Court has confirmed the judgments in the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 2074. 4. It is argued by Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the categorical pronouncement,namely, after the candidates are brought under Zone of Consideration on the basis of their eligibility for admission to seats earmarked for eminent Sports person, the further selection and admission shall be made only on the academic marks. To appreciate the said submission, the facts of Khalid Hussain Case need a reference. Annexure 1(3) of the prospectus for admission for the academic year 1986-1987 reads as under:

" Annexure-1(iii) Eminent Sportsman

Special Category". In the sub-

Column (iii) under the Caption

Eminent Sportsman, there are three

Categories, namely,

(a)Participation at International

Level the candidate being sponsored

By national body;

(b)Participation at National level

the candidate being sponsored by a

State body or University;

(c) Participation at State level the

candidate being sponsored by Zonal

or District Association.

5. From the reading of the above prospectus, it is seen that though the seats were earmarked for eminent Sports Person, except the three categories viz., (1) Participation at International level, the candidate being sponsored by a national body, (2) Participation at national level, the candidate being sponsored by a State Body of University and 3) Participation at State level, the candidate being sponsored by Zonal or District Association,there are no guidelines were provided by which comparative eminence can be judged as between the candidates belonging to the same category. The Apex Court has therefore held that in the absence of guideline to award of marks for excellence in Sports, the admission shall be made on the basis of academic marks and allowing admissions only on the basis of marks awarded to the certificates would leave the discretion to the Executive in making the choice. Para 5 of the judgment reads as under:

5??. It has to be pointed out that the

rule itself does not provide for determination

of comparative eminence as between different

candidates falling within the same class but

as between sportsmen who have participated t

International level, National level and State

Level. It only provides for the rule of

exclusion of one by the other. There are no

guidelines provided by which comparative

eminence can be judged as between candidates

belonging to the same class e.g., at National

level, as here. Nor does it provide for any

guidelines by which the choice has to be made

as between the candidates who have excelled

in a particular field of sports e.g. acquatics. The real difficulty arises when there are more

than one candidates who have excelled in their

respective fields of sports e.g. Cricket, foot- ball, hockey etc. and the number of seats

reserved are less than the candidates found

eligible. All of them being more or less equal, the best method is to go by marks obtained at

the qualifying examination. In such a case, the selection must necessarily depend upon their

academic merits. Even in P.Sabitha's case, the

Court realized the difficulty to lay down any

Guidelines for adjudging comparative eminence

Between sportsmen falling within the same class

and it was said that when candidates are shown

to have attained equal proficiency in sports,

then their academic superiority can be pressed

into service as a tilting factor in their

favour.

6.Coming to the prospectus for the academic year 2003-2004, after prescribing the order of preference viz., Participation at International level, National level and State level, the prospectus further provides the method of scrutinizing the certificates and award of marks: Appendix-III

Selection of Candidates under Quota for Eminent

Sports Persons-2003

1.As the purpose of this quota is to recognize

and give weightage to the sports eminence of

the candidate, sports mark alone will be considered in ranking the candidate. The candidate is expected to show performance in sports, if selected. 2. Selection of the candidates will be based on the marks obtained by the candidates following the guidelines given in the table below: (A) Marks for (each) Participation:

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Category International National (Representing (Representing

Nation) State)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Individual 20 10

Team 10 5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (B) Marks for (each) achievement:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

International National State

(Representing (Representing (Representing Nation State Revenue Dist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cate- Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze Gold Silver Bronze gory

Indivi- 60 40 20 40 27 13 27 18 9

dual

Team 30 20 10 20 13 7 13 9 5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other Recognised National/State Level

Sports Meet (C) Marks for (each)achievement

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sl.No. Sponsor Category Gold Silver Bronze

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.School Games Federation

Of India (SGFI) Individual 30 20 10

(National Level) Team 15 10 5

2.All India Rural Individual 30 20 10

Sports (National Team 15 10 5

Level

3. Bharathiyar Day Individual 20 13

Sports Meet (State Team 10 7 4

4.Republic Day Sports Individual 20 13 7

Meet(State Level) Team 10 7 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(D) Marks for overall Championship

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Category International National State

(representing Nation) (representing (representing State Revenue Dist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Championship 30 25 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == 7. From the above, it is seen that specific regulations, guidelines are prescribed for awarding marks to the participation, achievements and overall championship. When the method for award of marks is provided and the guidelines prescribed, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. As already pointed out, the said judgment was rendered in a case where no guidelines for awarding marks to judge the comparative eminence in sports were prescribed.

8. The Government being the funding agency, is entitled to identify the source for admission. Reservation for special category is made under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India and is "Horizontal Reservation". Even while filling the seats earmarked as "Horizontal Reservation" social reservation under Article 15(1) is followed only when such reservation is "Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation" and not "Overall Horizontal Reservation". Such Reservation for eminent Sports Persons is only to recognise the excellence/achievements in sports and to encourage sports and games among students. Once the eligibility for admission under Sports Category is determined, the selection and admission shall be based on the marks obtained for the excellence in sports only. There cannot be a further classification on the basis of academic marks for selection and admission. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to be rejected.

9. For the above reason, I do not find any merit in the challenge to the prospectus. Equally, I am unable to find any illegality in the selection of candidates viz., respondents 4 to 6 on the basis of the marks awarded for their participation in the sports. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.26375/2003 is closed. Index: Yes

Website: Yes

vbs

To

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu

Department of Education,

Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

2.Selection Committee,

Director of Medical Education

Kilpauk, Chennai.10.

3.Common Committee for Selection

Of students for MBBS 2003-2004

Anna University, Chennai.25.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.